In the old days of the Bush administration, life in a online liberal discussion forum was great. Everybody was having a great time bashing the president and marveling at each others brilliance. But in the age of Obama, these once fertile fields of partisan rancor have been tainted by ideological dissent.

The latest news from Democratic Underground (DU) is a perfect example of whats happening to the left online.

Earlier this year, the moderators of DU angered users of the forum after they issued a lengthy censored list of online behavior that would be banned and deleted from the site.

Now, matters are worse, as their latest fund drive has come up short.

In the face of dissent and division, website administrator Skinner took to the web to issue a angst filled lament over the loss of the old DU

You dont like what DU has become. Maybe you have very specific complaints, or maybe you dont really know exactly what it is that you dont like. But what you do know is that you wish it was more like the old DU. A community. A place that was special. Where we had big disagreements, but at least you felt like we all had something in common.

Yeah, I miss that DU, too.

I miss it so much that it makes my heart ache. I lie awake at night agonizing over it. I can barely bring myself to read my email anymore. Im burned out and tired. . . . Heres the problem in a nutshell: Back when Bush was President, he represented the center of gravity in politics  the focal point that determined Which side are you on?  and everyone on DU actually was on the same side. Now that Barack Obama is President, he has become the center of gravity. I think its clear that we still broadly agree on the issues, but we disagree on how best to get there, how long it should take, and how much compromise we are willing to accept. Those are the disagreements that matter now. To be blunt, we are not all on the same side anymore.

Imagine if during the Bush Administration, Democratic Underground had welcomed people who thought the president was doing a bad job, *and* people who thought the president was doing a good job. DU would have sucked. Sure, it might have been worth the effort to stop by every once in a while to argue with conservative idiots, but nobody would have felt like DU was their home, their safe-haven, their community.

So what is a lefty web haven to do when change causes division? Skinner proposes the following: I am starting to think that much more radical change is necessary.

Note: this is an online column (Beltway Confidential) from a print newspaper, the Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com). Please do not confuse this with the blogging site, the Examiner (www.examiner.com). Thank you.

I would suggest that a problem with the left is that they have few core values. We on the right know what we want: individual responsibility; less government; government centered in the individual, not a centralized beauracracy; adherence to the Constitution; a strong defense. There are more, but you can see where I’m going with this. But they are just against that, but have nothing that they are really for (unless it is for murdering unborn children and those who are too helpless to take care of themselves). But with the field wide open as to what to be for, they have no center around which they can coalesce.

The Busybodies know what’s best for everybody. They know how best to divide the labor and the fruits of labor. They know who is more “deserving” and who is less so. They know what “justice” is, and they intend to execute same, regardless of the cost. These people spend more time trying to run other peoples’ lives than they do managing their own affairs.

The Individualists just want to be left alone to pursue their own interests without interference. They are fiercely independent, ambitious, and innovative. They seek solutions to real every day problems in medicine, industry, and business. They believe that the market is the best place to sort out the best in class, and that MERIT is the engine of advancement.

Because the Individualists are more compelled to manage their own affairs than to meddle in the affairs of others, they tend to have less presence in the fields of politics. They are, basically, too busy pursuing their own interests to get involved with managing the affairs of others.

Given these social forces, the Busybodies tend to be the ones that gravitate to the political stratum. As they begin to overtake the machinery of politics and foreign affairs, and begin to impose onerous regulations and stupid laws intended to reduce everybody to a lowest common denominator, except themselves, of course, the Individualists begin to wake up and assert themselves to recover command of the levers of polity.

The ferocity, even lethality, of the ensuing struggle depends upon how dedicated the Busybodies are to their socialist fantasies, and how dedicated the Individualists are to be simply left alone to pursue their own interests.

That struggle is intensifying now.

10
posted on 08/22/2010 4:56:29 AM PDT
by Westbrook
(Having children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)

They made their goal shortly after $kimmer wagged his finger at the slackers. Welcoming banned posters with deep pockets back into the fold after making threats to other members probably helped.

One thing the article is correct about is that Liberals can’t go a day without anger and bitterness about something, usually aimed at one another. They miss GWB more than they’ll ever admit. It’s pure entertainment watching them implode. The problem is that the idjits can take down good people and nations when they self destruct.

This is what sets FR apart from the DUmp. Skinner raises a valid point, in that a political site is going to be more united when the other side’s in power and provides a focus of motivation.

At the same time, though, Jim’s never expected FReepers to move in lockstep like mind-numbed robots. Yes, there’s a strong set of core values here, but there’s still lots of room for freewheeling discussion and argument on any number of topics. One thing I’ve noticed about liberals (feminists are especially bad about it) is that they set very strict boundaries about what is “allowed,” and if you go outside those boundaries by not being part of the “amen sister” echo chamber, you’re persona non grata. We’ve got a bit more room to discuss and disagree here, and for that I’m eternally grateful.

}:-)4

13
posted on 08/22/2010 4:59:55 AM PDT
by Moose4
(November 2, 2010--the day that "YES WE CAN" becomes "OH NO YOU DIN'T")

I saw that on DU. What struck me is how they each think they represent or speak for a larger group of people. They are missing the value of the tea party, i.e. a group of people loosely grouped around a set of ideals who each speak just for themselves. There is so much back and forth criticism because they each think the next poster might ruin the movement. They end up being a bunch of small minded thought police.

Interesting, was at a Tea Party meeting last night where the discussion was centered on the very issue of what exactly “they” believe.

The consensus was the same, they believe in nothing and that changes daily depending on the winds. Oh, excuse me, that was a RINO definition, the leftists do believe that man is destroying the planet and that anything conservative or Christian is part of the problem.

The solution is obvious, reduce mans numbers in any way possible. They are all “for” world government, which will assist along with the UN in controlling evil man. The vehicle for achieving the goal of controlling man has been global warming, with cap and trade as the destroyer of the capitalist economy.

basically what happened from what i understand watching what they were up to is that the Obamabots and Obama’s campaign workers basically overtook DU and ran rough shot over anyone pro hillary and did not worship obama, it became an extension of Obama’s campaign and his mouthpiece.

As such everyone else left disgusted as dissent against Obama became forbidden.

Now they are down to a nutjob core of Obamabots as everyone else left.

Whenever I deal with liberals, without fail, three themes run through their speech:

1)People shouldn’t be allowed to do that! (or conversely, they should be forced to do that!)

2)People are so ignorant.

3)I’m entitled.

Next time you listen to a liberal- Listen. That’s their entire argument.

I’ve come to the conclusion that what makes a liberal is basic insecurity - they have to have the world formed into what they need it to be, or not only can’t the function, the world is denying them their birthright of being whatever they feel entitled to be.

39
posted on 08/22/2010 6:15:33 AM PDT
by I still care
(I believe in the universality of freedom -George Bush, asked if he regrets going to war.)

We have had battles while Bush was President over Dubai Ports,Harriet Miers etc. JimRob allowed the disagreements. What he didn't allow was crossing the line. Yeah there were "flame wars" but those that crossed the line had posts removed.

On DU there are no holds barred. They are allowed anything. There can be no debate on DU as their forum would self-immolate. By allowing obscenities and insults as normal behavior, heated debate would be death to their forum.

40
posted on 08/22/2010 6:27:24 AM PDT
by DJ MacWoW
(If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)

So what is a lefty web haven to do when change causes division? Skinner proposes the following: I am starting to think that much more radical change is necessary.

Ok, what's the "much more radical change" the guy is proposing?

I kinda figured this was where the Dem blogosphere/netroots were going to go. The history of "Progressive" movements is one of grassroots energy being mobilized, but then severely controlled and channeled into action through a strict command hierarchy run by a select few. Go against the hierarchy, and you are ostracized and made an outcast from the group.

The Nutroots are no different. They are primarily centered around blogs like Kos and MyDD which are tightly controlled and managed, only allowing a select few to actually post substantive material for consumption by the masses.

DU is more open (relative term) in terms of allowing broad equality of posting among the participants - but their authoritarian measures to stifle dissent really functions as an output-control method counterpart to the input controls on the blogs. HuffPo falls somewhere in-between.

From my experience, the GOP/Conservative side of the web is much more open, permissive, accepting and tolerant of "dissent" than the Dem/Left. Maybe it's just a function of the Conservative belief in the sovereignty of the individual rather than the collective (which is what the Left is really all about). Sure, at FR we have our Viking Kitties/Zots, but that's more of a troll-control mechanism rather than a means to ensure strict conformity to some narrow definition of what a "Conservative" is/should be.

I’m just now wondering if one big difference between the left and right is that the left is “situational” about a lot more than the right. In other words the right bases their analysis on stand-alone principles and the left bases theirs on principles that change from situation to situation. It’s like situational ethics but involves more than just ethics.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.